Method for optimally determining appropriate ergonomics for occupants of a workspace

ABSTRACT

A business method for optimally determining appropriate ergonomics of occupants of a workspace including a metric determined from personal-, environmental- and task-related attributes.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser.No. 60/319,291, filed Jun. 3, 2002, and U.S. Provisional ApplicationSer. No. 60/319,381, filed Jul. 5, 2002, both entitled “Method forOptimally Determining Appropriate Ergonomics for Occupants of aWorkspace.”

BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

In one aspect, the invention relates to a business method for optimallydetermining appropriate ergonomics of occupants of a workspace includinga metric determined from personal-, environmental- and task-relatedattributes.

2. Description of the Related Art

Ergonomics have become an increasingly important concern in severalindustries and fields of endeavor. These industries include, but are notnecessarily limited to, office furniture (including the wholesale andretail sale thereof), interior design, product identification anddesign, manufacturing equipment sale and design (both internal and“lean” manufacturing), and safety audit organizations which assess riskand audit compliance to ensure a safe working environment. Ergonomicsare also important in the insurance industry in assessing risk,providing guidelines and auditing compliance with generally-accepted orindustry-mandated policies.

Currently there are no standard ergonomics methods to evaluate theperson (especially groups of people), their particular work-relatedtask, and their environment (work station, assembly station, etc.).Although there exist various methods by which the ergonomics of onesubset of the above categories are used, there are no integrated methodsof assessing the ergonomics of a work-related environment. In addition,while an ergonomist might be able to quantify each of theabove-identified categories (i.e., person, task and environment), it hasnot been done in a manner which can quantifiably define a risk in theinteraction of those variables, and which can combine the quantifiedoutput with known incident rates and associated costs to provideinformation to determine what sort of return on investment (ROI) orincrease in productivity a company might realize from an improvement inergonomics.

The measurement of ergonomics has been attempted but has not yieldedsatisfactory results. Some companies have invested in methods to gatheranthropometrical data on individual employees but this must be done on aperson-by-person basis. Other companies have tried to evaluate the taskseach employee performs to obtain an estimate on the impact on anemployee's ergonomics. These task evaluation tools vary insophistication and complexity. Companies, which create the workenvironment (i.e. furniture, assembly equipment, etc.), have reliedprimarily on aesthetic differentiation and feature and functionaldifferentiation. Some companies, as well as the Business & InstitutionalFurniture Manufacturer's Association (BIFMA), have developed individualergonomic standards which have contributed to the design of individualergonomic products.

These prior art ergonomics estimation tools have been “single-user”solutions at best. These tools have not focused on acquiring data onlarge groups of people and provide little in the way of proactivesolutions focused on, company-based populations. In addition, most ofthese solutions are difficult to duplicate, require expertise toutilize, and are created and empowered by a small group of individualswithin small populations focused on reactive intervention, e.g., theergonomics solutions are implemented after a work-related or repetitivestress injury.

There is a general lack of integrated and systemic solutions thatconsider the person, their task, and their environment. ROI models havebeen viewed as either incomplete or lacking in sophistication. Withregard to the determination of an ergonomics-related solution topersonal or anthropometrical data on individuals in the workspace, thisdata has typically involved the comprehensive measurement of manyindividuals in the workspace or at least those individuals whose healthneeds are being addressed. The measurements are detailed, invasive andtime consuming. A simpler, more intuitive, user-friendly system ofinputting anthropometrical data is needed. In the past, broad-based datacollection has been performed to provide statistical curves andprobability information for general population anthropometricdistribution. These broad-based methods are time-consuming. They do notmeet individual employee needs, and it is often prohibitively expensiveto capture a sufficiently large population sample to comprise ameaningful database.

With respect to the office furniture industry, ergonomics are animportant consideration. Employees working in a particular workspace cansuffer repetitive stress injuries and general discomfort when operatingin an ergonomically-unbalanced environment. This can result inadditional costs to a company, such as with lost workdays, lowerproductivity, workers' compensation claims and the like. It is desirablefor companies to assess their ergonomics with respect to their officefurniture, in their interior design and sale/purchase of furniture,identifying products which will result in better ergonomics, assessingcorporate risks and managing safety, as well as in up-front productdesign. In addition to ensuring the optimal ergonomics of a company'sworkforce, the office furniture industry needs to differentiate itssales process and techniques as an opportunity to gain market share,create new market opportunities, and decrease the pressure on primarilyusing discounts to sell product. There is a growing need to assure asafe working environment in the office setting.

It is not known to define an ROI based on providing a safer workenvironment and productivity improvements gained through reducingfatigue within the office environment, and to provide a customerpurchasing office furniture options based on that ROI data. In addition,once a company makes an office furniture purchasing decision, there isno current system to provide installation information on how to assurethat an individual or a user group implements the ergonomically-basedpurchasing decisions with respect to settings and comfort positioning ofthe purchased office furniture.

It is also difficult to identify different ergonomic settings for aproduct. Many commercially-available office furniture products (see,e.g., the Aeron chair available from Herman Miller, Inc. and the Leapchair available from Steelcase) have numerous adjustments and settingsto make their chairs fit a wide variety of users. However, companiespurchasing these items have no criteria to determine whether the officefurniture is an ergonomic fit for each user in the workspace. Further,there is no known user-friendly system proving customer safety and riskmanagement teams the ability to audit and assure their employees areutilizing safe working habits (e.g., configuring their workspace to anoptimal ergonomic fit). Rather, employees often simply configure aworkspace to their personal, subjective preferences without regard tooptimal ergonomics because employees typically do not know when theirenvironment is ergonomically correct. This personal configurationdynamic is typically a result of a lack of feedback to office furnituremanufacturers to guide product design to fill product niches based ondata relevant to optimal workplace ergonomics. And, there is currentlyno industry-accepted system to validate the ergonomic claims of aproduct design.

Office furniture providers have tried to solve these problems bydeveloping furniture standards (e.g., BIFMA Standards), and otherless-accepted standards unique to a particular office furnituremanufacturer. Companies have developed individual ergonomic products.Facilities teams have developed product evaluation and selection teamsand processes to attempt to provide the best ergonomic fit for theirworkplace.

However, these attempts have not been pragmatic or useful. Mostsolutions are difficult to duplicate, require expertise to utilize, canconflict with other available solutions, and are created and empoweredby a small group of individuals within small populations focused onreactive intervention (i.e., typically only after lost workdays andreduced productivity). There is no user-friendly approach, or knownapproaches are subjective to a particular workplace. Attempts todetermine or model a customers ROI on an office furniture purchase havebeen viewed as either incomplete or lacking in sophistication andaccuracy. Many companies avoid productivity-measurement issues that areproduct- or workstation-driven and ergonomic solutions have not beenvalidated by outside entities to determine their validity or usefulness.

The same issues are prevalent in the office furniture retail industry.The office furniture retail sales industry (i.e. Staples, Office Max,etc.) needs to differentiate its sales process and techniques as anopportunity to gain market share and create new market opportunities. Inaddition, there is a growing need to assure a safe working environmentin the home office setting due to the increased prominence oftelecommuting and home-based businesses. There are even less optionsavailable to retail purchasers to define an ROI-based model to provide asafer work environment and for the retail sales outlet to provide to thecustomer purchase options based on that data. It is not known to defineproductivity improvement data gained through reducing fatigue within thehome office environment, and to provide a purchasing customer equipmentoptions based on that data. There is no known system to provideinstallation information on how to assure that the buyer implementsergonomic-based purchasing decisions. There is no known user-friendlysystem to easily identify different ergonomic settings for a product andto easily communicate those settings to a purchasing consumer (who maypurchase a wide variety of products from different manufacturers).Companies have developed individual ergonomic products but they do noteffectively communicate appropriate ergonomic settings to the consumer.

The same issues apply to other environments as well, such as amanufacturing workplace. No known technology or system exists to predictproductivity improvements or risk reduction in the manufacturingenvironment based on ergonomic data of both the person performing tasks,the task, as well as the environment in which the task is performed.There is a growing need to assure a safe working environment in themanufacturing arena, which focuses on ergonomics and safe workplacedesign.

There is no known system to provide equipment installation informationon how to assure that individual or user group implements anyergonomic-based purchasing decisions. There are no known user-friendlysystems to be used by process designers, both internal and external tothe manufacturer, to systematically consider optimizing the person(s),the task (s), and the environment. There is no known user-friendlysystem to easily identify different ergonomic settings for a product.There is no known user-friendly system providing customer safety andrisk management teams the ability to audit and assure their employeesare utilizing safe working habits. Further, there is no closed loopfeedback system to guide product design to fill product niches based onergonomic data identified in the workplace.

Providers of manufacturing equipment have attempted to developindividual ergonomic products for the manufacturing environment.Engineers have developed product evaluation and selection teams andprocesses as well as manufacturing task evaluation processes.Consultants have provided reactive intervention for specific individualsor settings (typically following injury or a period of reducedproductivity). These past attempts have typically focused on single-userand company-based approaches.

These past attempted solutions are difficult to duplicate, requireexpertise to utilize, and are created and empowered by a small group ofindividuals within small populations focused on reactive intervention.There is no known user-friendly approach. The solutions exist, but aresingle-user solutions, typically subjectively designed for a particularworkplace. Most companies avoid productivity-measurement issues that areproduct driven and any ergonomic solutions that have not been validatedby outside entities.

These issues also exist in companies which desire to have so-called“safety audits” performed in their work environment (regardless of theparticular field of endeavor of the company). Outside safety auditorganizations as well as productivity-enhancement groups typicallyperform these audits to assess risk and audit compliance to attempt toensure a safe working environment. These organizations include corporaterisk and safety management groups, consultants to companies,governmental risk and safety management agencies, and labor unions.

Currently there are no known standard ergonomics methods to evaluate theperson (especially groups of people), the task, and the environment(work station, assembly station, etc.), to combine those in a methodthat quantifiably defines the risk the interaction of those variables,and combines the output with known incident rates and associated coststo provide an associated dollar value for deviation from the optimum (orcombines the output with known fatigue factors to predict any impact onproductivity).

In order to attempt to provide more accurate and useful safety audits,some organizations have invested in methods to gather anthropometricaldata on individual employees. A number of task evaluation tools exist,which vary in sophistication and complexity. Single-user solutionsexist, which have not focused on acquiring data on groups of people, andprovide little in the way of proactive solutions focused oncompany-based populations.

Most solutions are difficult to duplicate, require expertise to utilize,and are created and empowered by a small group of individuals withinsmall populations focused on reactive intervention. There is a generallack of integrated solutions, which consider the person, task, andenvironment. ROI models have been viewed as either incomplete or lackingin sophistication. Finally, most companies avoidproductivity-measurement issues that are product or workstation driven.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION

In one aspect, the invention relates to a business method for optimallydetermining appropriate ergonomics of occupants of a workspace includinga metric determined from personal-, environmental- and task-relatedattributes.

The invention described herein is a user-friendly system to evaluateindividuals and groups of individuals. A fully-integrated approach isprovided that considers the person or persons, the task, and theenvironment of an employee's workspace. The invention contemplates theeasy compilation of data to provide quantified risk assessment, ROI, andproductivity impact. The ergonomic recommendations can be independentlyvalidated to ensure compliance and to prevent future ergonomic-relatedinjury or productivity slowdowns.

The invention relates to an integrated, systematic approach to measurethe attributes of the person, the task, and their environment, and toidentify optimal outcomes and related ROI/productivity measures.

In one aspect, the invention relates to a method for optimizing theergonomics of a workplace comprising the steps of: assessing a currentergonomic state of the workplace; comparing the current ergonomic stateof the workplace to at least one predefined ergonomic standard;implementing at least one physical change to the workplace based on thecomparing step; and optimizing the comparison step with datarepresentative of the at least one implemented physical change. The atleast one of ergonomics and productivity of the workplace are therebyimproved by the at least one implemented physical change to theworkplace and future ergonomic assessments and optimizations arecontinually improved by the optimizing step.

In another aspect, the invention relates to a system for improving theergonomics for individuals in a workplace, the workplace comprising atleast one item having at least one physically adjustable parameter, thesystem comprising: an assessment of at least one of: (1) the physicalcharacteristics of a user, (2) the physical characteristics of at leastone task performed by the user, and (3) the physical characteristics ofat least one environmental feature of the workplace, wherein input datais created as a result of the assessment; and a determination of atleast one of: (1) a preferred setting for the at least one physicallyadjustable parameter of the at least one item in the workplace based atleast in part upon the input data created via the assessment, and (2) arecommended replacement item for the at least one item in the workplacehaving at least one physically adjustable parameter. The ergonomic datarepresentative of the individuals in the workplace can thereby beevaluated during the assessment and the at least one physicallyadjustable parameter of the at least one item in the workplace can bepositioned at a preferred setting based upon the results of thedetermination.

In an additional aspect, the invention relates to a system for optimallyindicating preferred ergonomic positions for a work area having at leastone physically adjustable parameter in a workplace comprising anindicator strip having a series of different ergonomic ranges thereon,wherein each ergonomic range corresponds to a preferred ergonomicpositional range for a corresponding one of the at least one physicallyadjustable parameter of the work area, wherein a user working in theworkplace can be positioned into a suitable ergonomic position simply byaligning each of the at least one physically adjustable parameterswithin the particular ergonomic range corresponding to that user.

In a further aspect, the invention relates to a method for optimallyindicating preferred ergonomic positions for a work area having at leastone physically adjustable parameter in a workplace comprising the stepsof: providing an at least one indicator strip having a series ofdifferent ergonomic ranges thereon, wherein each ergonomic rangecorresponds to a preferred ergonomic positional range for acorresponding one of the at least one physically adjustable parameter ofthe work area; and applying the at least one indicator strip to the workarea in a position so as to be in alignment with the at least onephysically adjustable parameter of the workplace.

In another aspect, the invention relates to a method for optimizing theergonomics of a workplace comprising the steps of: determining a healthindex relating to a current ergonomic state of the workplace;recommending at least one physical change to the current ergonomic stateto a proposed ergonomic state based upon the determining step;predicting at least one of (1) a probability of injury, (2) a change ina probability of injury, (3) a change in productivity, and (4) a returnon investment, as a result of the at least one physical change from thecurrent ergonomic state to the proposed ergonomic state. Entities makingdecisions regarding the ergonomics of the workplace as well aspurchasing decisions for the workplace can thereby be better educated asto the benefits of making the at least one physical change between thecurrent ergonomic state and the proposed ergonomic state.

A plurality of embodiments of the various aspects of the invention arealso contemplated.

The method can further comprise the step of surveying the ergonomic riskof an entity. The method can further comprise the step of surveying ahealth index of the entity. The method can further comprise the step ofsurveying user preferences based on at least one of fit, form andfunction of items used in the workplace. The method can further comprisethe step of inventorying current furniture used by the entity. Themethod can further comprise the step of identifying high-riskindividuals. The method can further comprise the step of holding aone-on-one consultation with any identified high-risk individuals. Themethod can further comprise the step of confirming that an individual isa high-risk through the one-on-one consultation. The method can furthercomprise the step of identifying necessary furniture for any confirmedhigh-risk individuals. The method can further comprise the step ofidentifying potential solutions to addressed the high-risk individuals.

The method can further comprise the step of defining at least one of anentity's risk of injury. The method can further comprise the step ofoptimizing a furniture investment for the entity. The method can furthercomprise the step of calculating fit settings for individual users offurniture in the workplace. The method can further comprise the step ofproviding a marking system on furniture located within the workplace.The method can further comprise the step of correlating calculated fitsettings to the marking system used on the furniture.

The method can further comprise the step of training individuals workingin the workplace on how to use furniture selected for each individual.The method can further comprise the step of recalibrating the fit of theselected furniture to each individual working in the workplace. Themethod can further comprise the step of monitoring at least one of thehealth and risk of injury of the entity associated with the workplace.

The method can further comprise the step of signaling a need to addressan entity's risk level. The method can further comprise the step ofcontinually refining the calculated fit settings for individuals in anentity's workplace. The method can further comprise the step ofassessing at least one risk factor of users of the workplace. The methodcan further comprise the step of surveying the ergonomic risk of anentity. The method can further comprise the step of surveying a healthindex of the entity. The method can further comprise the step ofcorrelating the ergonomic risk of the entity to the health index of anindividual working in the workplace.

The method can further comprise the step of identifying high-riskindividuals. The method can further comprise the step of defining atleast one of an entity's risk and probability of injury. The method canfurther comprise the step of monitoring at least one of the health andrisk of injury of the entity associated with the workplace. The methodcan further comprise the step of determining a change in the healthindex of an individual working in the workplace as a result of the atleast one physical change implemented to the workplace. The method canfurther comprise the step of correlating the change in the health indexto each of the at least one physical change implemented to theworkplace.

The method can further comprise the step of determining which variablesassociated with the implemented change in the workplace are affected asa result of the implemented change. The method can further comprise thestep of at least one of adjusting the weight of any affected activevariables and adding new weighted variables as a result of thecorrelation step between the health index and the at least one physicalchange implemented to the workplace. The method can further comprise thestep of creating a new individual risk definition equation as a resultof the adjustment of the active variables and correlation of theindividual health index. The method can further comprise the step ofredefining at least one of an entity's risk and probability of injuryusing the newly-created individual risk definition equation.

The method can further comprise the step of recommending at least oneitem for use in the workplace by users of the workplace, wherein therecommended item has improved ergonomics over items previously used inthe workplace. The method can further comprise the step of surveying ahealth index of the entity. The method can further comprise the step ofinventorying items currently used by an entity in the workplace. Themethod can further comprise the step of correlating the determinedhealth index to the inventory of items currently used by an entity inthe workplace. The method can further comprise the step of proposingreplacement items for those currently used by an entity in theworkplace. The method can further comprise the step of optimizing theinvestment by an entity in the replacement items.

The method can further comprise the step of identifying high-riskindividuals currently working in the workplace. The method can furthercomprise the step of identifying effective items for the identifiedhigh-risk individuals and which have improved ergonomics over thosecurrently used by the entities in the workplace. The proposedreplacement items can comprise furniture.

The method can further comprise the step of monitoring at least one ofthe health index and the risk of injury of an entity working in theworkplace. The method can further comprise the step of correlating anychange in the high-risk individual's health index to the recommendeditems on an item-by-item basis. The method can further comprise the stepof identifying effective furniture types, characteristics and specificproducts for replacement of furniture items currently used byindividuals in the workplace. The method can further comprise the stepof prioritizing furniture solutions for any identified high-riskindividuals.

The method can further comprise the step of improving the ergonomics ofindividuals in the workplace by correctly fitting them to items used inthe workplace. The items used in the workplace can be furniture. Themethod can further comprise the step of measuring at least one physicalcharacteristic of an individual who works in the workplace. The methodcan further comprise the step of calculating the individuals correct fitsettings for an item used by the individual in the workplace. The methodcan further comprise the step of applying an indicator to the item usedby the individual in the workplace indicating the fit settings for atleast one adjustable parameter of the item used by the individual in theworkplace. The indicator can indicate at least one satisfactory range ofsaid settings for the at least one adjustable parameter of the item usedby the individual in the workplace. The at least one satisfactory rangefor the indicator can be visually perceptible from a predetermineddistance for auditing purposes.

The method can further comprise the step of recalibrating the fitsettings of the furniture to the individual. The method can furthercomprise the step of correlating the fit settings of the item used by anindividual in the workplace to at least one of an active and an inactivevariable. The method can further comprise the step of creating a newfitting equation based upon at least one of the fit settings of the itemused by an individual in the workplace as correlated to that individualsfit settings for the item used in the workplace. The method can furthercomprise the step of verifying the fit settings of the item used by theindividual in the workplace based upon the new fitting equation.

The assessment can further comprise at least one survey having at leastone criterion relating to at least one ergonomic feature of theworkplace. The at least one criterion can be evaluated based upon apredetermined scale. Each individual can be scored according to theirratings provided in the survey. At least one of a health index and arisk of injury factor can be calculated for each individual in theworkplace based upon their ratings provided in the survey. Theassessments of individuals in the workplace can be evaluated todetermined whether any individual is a high risk for injury.

The determination can further comprise an equation employing input datarepresentative of at least one of: (1) the physical characteristics of auser, (2) the physical characteristics of at least one task performed bythe user, and (3) the physical characteristics of at least oneenvironmental feature of the workplace. The equation preferably producesa value representative of a preferred setting for the at least onephysically adjustable parameter of the at least one item in theworkplace.

The system can also include an indicator for application to the at leastone item in the workplace, the indicator being representative of a rangeof settings applicable to the at least one physically adjustableparameter of the at least one item. The indicator can be marked with thepreferred setting for the at least one physically adjustable parameterof the at least one item. The indicator can be color-coded for ranges ofacceptable settings of the at least one physically adjustable parameterof the at least one item. The at least one item can comprise multiplephysically adjustable parameters, each parameter having an indicatorassociated therewith. The color-coded ranges on the multiple items caneach be correlated to a preferred setting for each of the physicallyadjustable parameters on each item, whereby a particular color on eachof the indicators can be associated with an individual user of the atleast one item. The at least one item can comprise at least onefurniture item.

The at least one physically adjustable parameter can comprise at leastone of the following items selected from the group of: seat height, armheight, monitor position, leg position, thigh position, arm widthadjustment, lumbar/back height adjustment, tilt lock adjustment, seatdepth adjustment, work surface height, keyboard height, mouse position,document holder position, telephone position, telephone use position,foot rest position, task light presence and position.

The system can also include a calculation of a return on investment ofan entity improving its ergonomics according to the determination aswell as an inventory of items currently used in the workplace. Theinventory of items currently used in the workplace can further comprisea replacement inventory of at least one replacement item having at leastone physically adjustable parameter capable of being positioned in apreferred ergonomic position for at least one user in the workplace.

The ergonomic ranges on the indicator strip can be visually perceptiblefrom a distance to allow for easy visual auditing of the alignment ofthe at least one physically adjustable parameter of the work area withthe particular ergonomic range pertaining to the particular user in thework area.

A determination of the particular ergonomic range for each user of thework area can be provided which can employ input data representative ofat least one of: (1) the physical characteristics of a user, (2) thephysical characteristics of at least one task performed by the user, and(3) the physical characteristics of at least one environmental featureof the workplace.

Each ergonomic range on the indicator strip can include sub-graduatedareas corresponding to additional preferred ergonomic settings withinthe ergonomic range. The at least one physically adjustable parameter ofthe work area can comprise a plurality of different physicallyadjustable parameters, and the indicator strip further comprises aplurality of indicator strips varying in size corresponding to theparticular physically adjustable parameter to which the particularindicator strip relates to provide a range of ergonomic positions for aplurality of users coded to each ergonomic range. Each user can be codedto a particular ergonomic range. Each user can be trained how to seteach physically adjustable parameter in their work area to their codedergonomic range. Each ergonomic range can be color-coded to be visuallydistinct from one another.

The method can further comprise the step of positioning the at least onephysically adjustable parameter of the work area in alignment with oneof the series of ergonomic ranges on the indicator strip. The method canfurther comprise the step of positioning each of the at least oneindicator strips onto the work area wherein the location of each of theat least one indicator strip corresponds to a preferred ergonomicposition for each of the at least one physically adjustable parametersof the work area.

The method can further comprise the step of determining which ergonomicrange on the at least one indicator strip corresponds most accurately toa particular user. The method can further comprise the step ofpositioning a user working in the workplace into a suitable ergonomicposition simply by aligning each of the at least one physicallyadjustable parameters within the particular ergonomic range determinedfor that user.

The method can further comprise the step of auditing of the alignment ofthe at least one physically adjustable parameter of the work area withthe particular ergonomic range pertaining to the particular user in thework area.

The method can further comprise the step of confirming the predicted atleast one of (1) a probability of injury, (2) a change in a probabilityof injury, and (3) a return on investment, after the at least onephysical change is made to convert the workplace from the currentergonomic state to the proposed ergonomic state. The health index can bedetermined based upon at least one criterion. The at least one criterioncan comprise a plurality of criteria.

The determining step can further comprise conducting a survey of atleast one occupant of the workplace to assist in determining the healthindex. The method can further comprise the step of correlating responsesto the survey to at least one of: OSHA recordable history, worker'scompensation history, and a health index of an occupant of theworkplace. The method can further comprise the step of integrating thecorrelating step into the predicting step.

The method can further comprise the step of proposing at least oneimplemented solution for making the change between the current ergonomicstate and the proposed ergonomic state. The method can further comprisethe step of correlating the at least one implemented solution to atleast one of: future OSHA recordable incidents, future worker'scompensation incidents, and a future health index of an occupant of theworkplace. The method can further comprise the step of integrating thecorrelating step into the predicting step.

The method can further comprise the step of assessing a furnitureinventory for the workplace. The method can further comprise the step ofcorrelating options available in the furniture inventory to at least oneof: OSHA recordable history, worker's compensation history, and a healthindex of an occupant of the workplace. The method can further comprisethe step of integrating the correlating step into the predicting step.

The method can further comprise the step of proposing at least oneimplemented furniture change for making the at least one physical changebetween the current ergonomic state and the proposed ergonomic state.The method can further comprise the step of correlating the at least oneimplemented furniture change to at least one of: future OSHA recordableincidents, future worker's compensation incidents, and a future healthindex of an occupant of the workplace. The method can further comprisethe step of integrating the correlating step into the predicting step.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

The following paragraphs generally describe the contents of the drawingsprovided herein.

FIG. 1 is a schematic illustrating a business method for producing arelative risk rating and/or a productivity metric from a calculationwhich receives personal attributes, task attributes and environmentalattributes as inputs according to the invention.

FIG. 1A is a flow chart illustrating general method steps embodied inthe schematic of the invention shown in FIG. 1.

FIG. 1B is a schematic illustrating another embodiment of the businessmethod and system of FIG. 1 including a feedback loop for continuallyenhancing the produced output of the method and system.

FIG. 1C is a schematic illustrating a tangible benefit of the method andsystem of FIG. 1 including the calculation of a Percent Return onInvestment metric.

FIG. 1D is a sample datasheet outlining sample results of the method andsystem of FIG. 1 showing an example of the numerical output defining thePercent Return on Investment of FIG. 1C.

FIG. 2 is a schematic illustrating detailed method steps of anotherembodiment of the business method shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 3 is a list of exemplary survey topics that can be addressed toidentify individuals who require a one on one consultation duringimplementation of the business method in FIG. 2;

FIG. 4 is a list of exemplary survey topics that can be addressed in arisk assessment of an installed site during implementation of thebusiness method in FIG. 2;

FIG. 5 is a list of exemplary survey topics that can be addressed in arisk assessment of a new site during implementation of the businessmethod in FIG. 2;

FIG. 6 is a schematic illustrating a furniture optimization process asemployed in the business method in FIG. 2;

FIG. 7 is a table illustrating furniture recommendations based on sizelimitations and an individual's risk as assessed in FIG. 4 if the siteis installed or in FIG. 5 if the site is new;

FIG. 8 is a list of exemplary survey topics that can be addressed in afurniture fitting and example of functions that can be utilized for thefurniture fitting during implementation of the business method in FIG.2;

FIG. 9 is table showing an exemplary marking system that correlatesresults from the furniture fitting in FIG. 8 to a color;

FIG. 10 is an example of a label that can be placed on a workspace andused in conjunction with the marking system in FIG. 9;

FIG. 11 is a schematic illustrating a training process as employed inthe business method in FIG. 2;

FIG. 12 is a schematic illustrating a continual improvement process thatbuilds upon the business method shown in FIG. 2, wherein steps for thecontinual improvement process are shown with dashed borders;

FIG. 13 is a schematic illustrating a Return on Investment calculationprocess as employed in the business method in FIG. 2;

FIG. 14 is a side elevational view of a seated human form with sampledimensions making up a portion of the personal attributes for the methodillustrated in FIG. 1.

FIG. 15 is a front elevational view of a seated human form withadditional sample dimensions making up a portion of the personalattributes for the method illustrated in FIG. 1.

FIG. 16 is a front elevational view of a human form with additionalsample dimensions making up a portion of the personal attributes for themethod illustrated in FIG. 1, wherein the sample dimensions of FIG. 16identify typical clothing sizes.

FIG. 17 is a side elevational view of a human form with additionalsample dimensions making up a portion of the personal attributes for themethod illustrated in FIG. 1, wherein the sample dimensions of FIG. 17identify additional types of dimensions available from typical clothingsizes.

FIG. 18 is an example of a human form seated at a desk in a properergonomic position.

FIG. 19 is an example of a human form seated at a desk in a similarorientation as FIG. 18 but in an improper ergonomic position.

FIG. 20 is an example of a human form viewing a computer monitor in aproper ergonomic position.

FIG. 21 is an example of a human form viewing a computer monitor in asimilar orientation as FIG. 20 but in an improper ergonomic position.

FIG. 22 shows a fragmentary portion of a human form seated on an officefurniture chair with an armrest in a proper ergonomic position.

FIG. 23 shows a front elevational view of the human form of FIG. 22 withan armrest in a proper ergonomic position.

FIG. 24 is an example of a human form seated at a computer keyboardshowing an arm and a wrist of the human form in a proper ergonomicposition.

FIG. 25 is an example of a human form seated at a computer keyboard in asimilar orientation as FIG. 24 but showing the arm and the wrist of thehuman form in an improper ergonomic position.

FIG. 26 is an example of a human form seated in an office furniturechair showing legs of the human form in a proper ergonomic position.

FIG. 27 is an example of a human form seated in an office furniturechair in a similar orientation as FIG. 26 showing feet of the human formin a proper ergonomic position with respect to the floor.

FIG. 28 is an example of a human form seated in an office furniturechair showing a back of the human form in a proper ergonomic positionwith respect to a back rest of the chair.

FIG. 29 is an example of a human form seated in an office furniturechair showing legs of the human form and a proper ergonomic positionwith respect to a front edge of a seat portion of the chair.

FIG. 30 is an example of a human form seated at a computer keyboardshowing armrests of an office furniture chair and a keyboard supportproviding a proper ergonomic position to the arms of the human form.

FIG. 31 shows a tray adapted to support both a computer keyboard and apointing device, such as a mouse, as it has been found that asufficiently large keyboard and mouse tray provides better ergonomicsupport than with the keyboard and mouse supported at different levelsor on different supports.

FIG. 32 is an example of a human form seated at a computer keyboard witha pointing device located directly adjacent to the keyboard, wherein thekeyboard and the pointing device are supported on a common keyboardtray, wherein the keyboard tray provides a proper ergonomic position sothat the human form does not need to extend its arms to reach thekeyboard and the pointing device.

FIG. 33 shows an example of a keyboard and a pointing device, such as amouse, supported at different levels at a user workstation, thusproviding an improper ergonomic position.

FIG. 34 shows an example of a hand of a human form placed on a pointingdevice which fits the hand of the human form, thus providing a properergonomic position.

FIG. 35 shows an example of a hand of a human form in which a wrist ofthe human form is resting on a support so that the wrist and hand of thehuman form do not rest on sharp or hard edges, thus providing a properergonomic position.

FIG. 36 shows a human form seated at a computer workstation illustratinga proper seating position for viewing a computer monitor thereof fornon-bifocal/trifocal-wearing users.

FIG. 37 shows a human form seated at a computer workstation illustratinga proper seating position for viewing a computer monitor thereof forbifocal/trifocal-wearing users.

FIG. 38 shows a human form seated at a computer workstation illustratinga proper seating position for viewing a computer monitor at a properergonomic distance.

FIG. 39 shows a human form seated at a computer workstation showing amonitor position directly in front of the human form illustrating aproper ergonomic position.

FIG. 40 shows a human form seated at a computer workstation showing amonitor positioned at an angle with respect to the human form showing animproper ergonomic position.

FIG. 41 shows a monitor for a computer workstation having anunacceptable level of glare imparted to the monitor by the ambientlighting surrounding the computer workstation thus illustrating animproper ergonomic situation.

FIG. 42 shows a computer workstation having a document holder attachedto a monitor providing a proper ergonomic position for a user seated atthe workstation.

FIG. 43 shows a human form seated at a computer workstation without adocument holder requiring the user to twist his or her trunk and holdhis or her head at an angle to read documents located adjacent to theworkstation providing an improper ergonomic position.

FIG. 44 shows a human form seated at a computer workstation including akeyboard and a pointing device with a wrist rest thereon allowing thehand of the human form to be kept in a neutral posture while using thekeyboard and pointing device thus providing a proper ergonomic position.

FIG. 45 shows the wrist rest and pointing device of FIG. 44 in greaterdetail.

FIG. 46 shows a human form seated at a workstation using a telephonewith the head in an upright/neutral posture permitting a properergonomic position.

FIG. 47 shows a human form seated at a workstation using a telephonewith the head in a deviated neck posture thus providing an improperergonomic position.

FIG. 48 is an example of a survey used to quantify computing-relatedtask attributes of the method described herein according to theinvention.

FIG. 49 illustrates an office chair provided with an ergonomic markingsystem according to the invention, the example shown in FIG. 49 beingrelated to a seat height adjustment for the office chair.

FIG. 50 is an enlarged elevational view of the region marked L in FIG.49.

FIG. 51 illustrates an office chair provided with an ergonomic markingsystem according to the invention, the example shown in FIG. 51 beingrelated to a back rest height adjustment for the office chair, the backrest height being shown in a lowered position, wherein only a portion ofthe ergonomic marking is shown in FIG. 51.

FIG. 52 illustrates the office chair of FIG. 51, wherein the back restheight being shown in FIG. 52 is in a raised position wherein a greaterportion of the ergonomic marking is shown in FIG. 52.

FIG. 53 is an enlarged elevational view of the region marked LIII inFIG. 52.

FIG. 54 illustrates an office chair provided with an ergonomic markingsystem according to the invention, the example shown in FIG. 54 beingrelated to an armrest height adjustment for the office chair, thearmrest height being shown in a lowered position wherein only a portionof the ergonomic marking is shown in FIG. 54.

FIG. 55 illustrates the office chair of FIG. 54, wherein the armrestheight being shown in FIG. 55 is in a raised position, wherein a greaterportion of the ergonomic marking is shown in FIG. 55.

FIG. 56 is an enlarged elevational view of the region marked LVI in FIG.55.

FIG. 57 illustrates an office chair provided with an ergonomic markingsystem according to the invention, the example shown in FIG. 57 beingrelated to a lateral adjustment for an armrest of the office chair, thearmrest lateral adjustment being shown in an outer position wherein onlya portion of the ergonomic marking is shown in FIG. 57.

FIG. 58 illustrates the office chair of FIG. 57, wherein the lateralarmrest position being shown in FIG. 58 is in an interposition, whereina greater portion of the ergonomic marking is shown in FIG. 58.

FIG. 59 shows the office chair of FIG. 57 with the armrest in a firstlateral position.

FIG. 60 shows the office chair of FIG. 57 with the armrest in a secondlateral position, wherein a portion of the ergonomic marking thereon isshown illustrating the particular lateral armrest position.

FIG. 61 shows the office chair of FIG. 57 with the armrest in a thirdlateral position, wherein an additional portion of the ergonomic markingthereon is shown illustrating the particular lateral armrest position.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Referring now to the drawings and to FIG. 1 in particular, a system andmethod for optimally determining appropriate ergonomics for occupants ofa workspace is shown generally by reference numeral 10. Thesystem/method 10 preferably comprises a coding equation 12 whichreceives at least one of personal attributes 14, task attributes 16 andenvironmental attributes 18 relating to occupants of the workspace andtheir job-related tasks.

The personal attributes 14 can include various input values andparameters for workers in the workspace. These personal attributes 14can include, but are not limited to: age, gender, fitness, height,weight, reach, and pre-existing conditions (such as the existence of arepetitive-stress injury such as carpal tunnel syndrome).

The task attributes 16 can include various input values and parametersfor tasks performed by workers in the workspace. These task attributes16 can include, but are not limited to: posture, perceived forces, andrepetition of work-related functions and tasks.

The environmental attributes 18 can include various input values andparameters for the workspace itself. These environmental attributes 18can include, but are not limited to: furniture types and positioning,computers, hand tools, controls and barriers.

A tangible benefit of this system and method 10 is the production of anoutput value 20 which relates to a relative risk rating and/or aproductivity metric. The risk rating is designed to provide anindication of a worker's likelihood of encountering a work-relatedinjury as a result of the attributes 14-18. This value can be expressedas a probability, a percentage or simply as an ordinal indicator (suchas “Low”, “Moderate”, “High” or “Very High”). The productivity metric isdesigned to provide an indication of the potential for an increase ordecrease in productivity as a result of the attributes 14-18. This valuecan be expressed as a percentage, a revenue change, a measure of lostworkdays or simply an ordinal indicator (e.g., “No Change”, “Decrease”,or “Increase”).

Turning to the flow chart shown in FIG. 1A, the method 10 associatedwith this invention is described in greater detail. As illustrated instep 30, the method 10 contemplates the input of personal attributes 14(e.g., anthropometric data, gender, height, weight, ADA issues/physicalhandicaps, hand strength, general fitness, vision requirements, existingchronic conditions, age, hand dominance, recent pregnancy), taskattributes 16 (e.g., keyboard-based, mouse-based, duration andpercentage of time of task, upper extremity postures, wrist deviations,supported/unsupported upper extremities, sitting posture, casual,moderate or intense office use, PC vs. laptop use, force, repetition)and environmental attributes 18 (e.g., light and glare, relativeposition of the monitor, seating height/depth, adjustable height andwidth of arms, lumbar support, tilt and tension, caster relationship tofloor surface, table height and depth, reach zones, vision zones, handdominance and work style [left to right or right to left], knee swingspace, elbow swing space).

As shown in step 32, empirical data can also be provided as an input tothe method 10. For example, this empirical data can include, but is notlimited to, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) logcase rate for Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTDs) or Musculo SkeletalDisorders (MSDs) or Repetitive Stress Injuries (RSIS), lost workdays,lost workday cases, case rates, national data for medical costs, andchurn rate data.

At step 34, calculations are performed on the input data provided insteps 30 and 32. These calculations, which form the resulting output 20shown in FIG. 1, can include a classification based on the personalattributes 14, the task attributes 16, and the environmental attributes18, as well as a relational map of the three attribute areas 14-18compared to an optimal point.

At step 36, the results of the calculation step 34 are provided. Theoutput of step 36 can include, but is not limited to, options for movingcloser to the optimal point determined in step 34, risks and costs ofthose options, and an evaluation of an expected risk of injury based onthose costs and expected benefits.

FIG. 1B shows an enhanced embodiment of the method and system 10 ofFIG. 1. In this embodiment, an injury history 22 of a person (or groupof people) is added as an input to the coding equation 12 (in additionto the personal, task and environmental attributes 14, 16 and 18described above and in greater detail below). As can be seen in FIG. 1B,the coding equation 12 receives these inputs 14, 16, 18 and 22 andoutputs a metric such as a relative risk rating and/or aprobability/risk of injury (e.g., expressed in a percentage), each showngenerally by reference numeral 20. In the embodiment of FIG. 1B, when arisk of injury metric is calculated, this information can be fed back(such as by the sample feedback loop 24 in FIG. 1B) to the inputattributes 14, 16, 18 and 22 to further refine these input attributes.

The recent injury history 22 can focus on both current levels of painand discomfort and work-related injury history. If a person acknowledgesa work-related injury history (which includes, but is not limited to, anOSHA-recorded event), additional inputs can be provided by the personexplaining the type of task and environment that attributed to theevent.

In this manner, the invention contemplates a regression-type analysisthat is incorporated into either the coding equation 12 or the formationand calculation of the input attributes 14, 16, 18 and 22. This canresult in greater accuracy and prediction of the method and system 10 asa historical set of data for a person or group of people is assembled.

FIG. 1C is a schematic illustrating a tangible benefit of the method andsystem 10 of FIGS. 1-1B including the calculation of a Percent Return onInvestment (ROI) metric 100. The risk of injury metric 20 described withrespect to FIGS. 1-1B can be combined with indirect and direct costs ofinjury 102 and 104, respectively, as well as with a cost of an item 106.In this manner, the costs associated with injury and the probabilitiesassociated therewith can be evaluated in connection with the simpleproduct cost to determine whether the purchase of the item 106 iscost-effective.

FIG. 1D is a sample datasheet 110 outlining sample results of the methodand system 10 of FIGS. 1-1C showing an example of the numerical outputdefining the Purchase Return on Investment of FIG. 1C. As can be seen,the datasheet 110 includes several columns of data, including: injuryrisk 20, indirect cost 102, direct cost 104, product cost 106, Return onInvestment, Fatigue Factor and Productivity (collectively referred towith reference numeral 100).

The injury risk 112 is derived from the regression applied to historicaldata with respect to the particular product at issue in the particularrow of the datasheet 110. This data can be determined from therefinement of the product database based on past history of individuals.

The direct cost 104 typically can be received from actuarial orinsurance company data that defines the average medical cost for anincident or injury encountered with a particular product and/orworkplace.

The indirect cost 102 is a multiple of the direct cost 104 based onactuarial or industry studies. The actual ratio of indirect cost 102 todirect cost 104 typically varies from 3:1 to 10:1. The indirect cost 102attempts to quantify the consequential costs of an injury as opposed tothe direct costs which typically quantify the out-of-pocket costsassociated with the injury.

The product cost 106 can be supplied by the manufacturer of a specificproduct or workstation layout. This may be discounted and the discountmay be input by either the manufacturer or the dealer/sales person.

The final three columns 100 of the datasheet are metrics output by thecoding equation 12 described with respect to FIGS. 1-1C. These are thevalues to be considered by a potential purchaser of an item 106.

The work-related injury history 22 and associated inputs that define thecause of the injuries are used to continually refine the calculations inthe coding equation 12 for each variable, and through the use of thedata, the output metric 20 can predict the probability of an injuryoccurrence. The predicted probability of an injury will also be appliedto different items and/or environments (such as office layouts or forindividual pieces of furniture).

The predicted injury rate and cost for each product or from a baseoption is then combined with the average indirect and direct cost of theinjury to define a Return On Investment for the buying options of theitems 106 (as illustrated in the sample datasheet 110 of FIG. 1D).

A more detailed embodiment of the system and method 10 for optimallydetermining appropriate ergonomics for occupants of a workspace isillustrated in FIG. 2. The system 10 can be employed for both existingand new sites and generally begins with an assessment of the site. Theassessment can involve several steps, such as surveying 150 theergonomic risk of an organization or individuals within the organizationand surveying 152 the health index of the organization or theindividuals. As in the previous embodiment, ergonomic risk is related tothe probability of an injury or loss in productivity due to improperergonomic work conditions. The health index, which will be addressed inmore detail hereinafter, is a function of pain severity and painfrequency.

Assessment can further include creating an inventory 156 of furniture orequipment currently utilized by the organization or individual andsurveying 154 consumer preferences based on, for example, how furniturefits, how desirable its appearance is, and how it is operated oradjusted. The assessment steps can be performed in any logical orderprovided that information regarding the personal attributes 14, taskattributes 16, and environmental attributes 18 is amassed for analysis.

During assessment, individuals who are at a high risk forergonomic-related injuries and might require a one on one consultationare identified in step 158 with the aid of survey topics, a list ofwhich is presented in FIG. 3. The survey topics relate to the variouspersonal attributes 14, task attributes 16, and environmental attributes18. The list in FIG. 3 is only representative, and it is within thescope of this invention to use other survey topics that assist inidentifying high-risk individuals. Furthermore, an organization candefine their own survey topics and imbed them into this survey and intoall surveys employed in the system and method 10. This is a costeffective means for an organization to ask several individuals anynumber of survey questions. Examples of survey topics associated withwork-related discomfort are given in box 182. The individual rates theseverity (S) of pain and the frequency (F) of pain on a scale, forexample from 1 to 5, wherein 5 is the most severe and most frequent. Asshown in box 184, the health index (HI) is calculated by multiplying Sby F, and if the HI is greater than a threshold value, for example 15,then the individual is identified as high risk. Alternatively, anindividual can have concerns, labeled as “other concerns” in FIG. 3,that cause the individual to automatically be ascribed as high riskregardless of S, F, or a combination thereof.

The status of a high-risk individual is confirmed/rejected in the one onone consultation in step 160. During the one on one consultation, thepersonal attributes 14, task attributes 16, and environmental attributes18 for the individual are recorded and analyzed. The analysis, whichwill be described in more detail hereinafter, provides a list ofnecessary furniture, as in step 166, or potential non-furnituresolutions, as in step 174, for the high-risk individual. Afterimplementation of the furniture and solutions, a client can use thepreviously recorded attributes 14, 16, and 18 in conjunction with newattributes to determine if there are any changes in the health index asa result of the new furniture and/or potential non-furniture solutions.

The information collected in the survey 150 of the ergonomic risk of theorganization or individual is utilized to define ergonomic risk and/orprobability of injury in step 162. Potential survey topics for aninstalled, already existing site are listed in FIG. 4. Again, the surveytopics relate to the various personal attributes 14, task attributes 16,and environmental attributes 18. The list in FIG. 4 is provided forexemplary purposes, and it is within the scope of this invention to useother survey topics that assist in ergonomic risk assessment of a site.For example, computing hours, posture, seating, monitor, and telephoneassessments are listed in boxes 186, 188, 190, 192, and 194,respectively. The latter three groups are collectively referred to as aninterface assessment. Points are assigned to the organization orindividual depending on the organization's or individual's responses tothe survey topics. For example, an individual who spends 3 hours per dayon the computer is assigned 1.5 points. Further, if an individual doesnot have proper posture for 2 posture assessments, then 2 points areassigned. Similarly, if the interface assessment yields 3 negativeresponses, then 1.5 points are assigned. The points from each group arethen input into a function, such as the exemplary function in box 196,to calculate a metric, such as a probability or an overall risk pointvalue, which can correspond to an ordinal indicator, similar to thatdescribed in the first embodiment. In the above example, the overallrisk point value is 5.25, which corresponds to “low risk.”

Potential survey topics for a new site are listed in FIG. 5, which isidentical to the list in FIG. 4. However, in assessing a new site, someof the survey topics are not applicable, such as posture assessment,because the furniture required to make the assessment does not exist.The ergonomic risk must be determined by relevant factors, such as dailycomputing hours 186. For example, if an organization or individualspends 6 hours per day on a computer, then their ergonomic risk isdefined as “moderate.”

Once the assessment portions (steps 150-162) of the system and method 10are completed, the furniture investment is optimized for an individualor organization in step 164, shown in FIG. 6. In this optimizationprocess 164, inputs determined in step 156 (inventory of currentfurniture), step 166 (identification of necessary furniture forhigh-risk individuals), and step 154 (survey of consumer preferences)are combined with furniture catalogs and libraries 200 andrecommendations 198 based on size limitations and individual risk. Therecommendations 198, examples of which are shown in a table in FIG. 7,identify furniture items and accessories for organizations orindividuals having various ergonomic risk levels, as defined in step162, or physical size limitations. According to FIG. 7, for example, itis recommended that a moderate risk individual use a chair that has atilt lock and adjustable seat height, arm height, arm width, lumbar/backheight, and seat depth. Meanwhile, a chair for a low risk individual isrequired to have only an adjustable seat height.

In step 202, if the current inventory of furniture contains alreadycontains appropriate items, then it is recommended that the currentfurniture is utilized rather than replacing it with new furniture.However, if recommended furniture is not in the current inventory, alist of suggested products for purchase is created from the inputslisted in the previous paragraph and sorted based on the prioritieslisted in FIG. 6 for step 204. Subsequently, in step 206, theorganization or individual analyzes a purchase decision utilizingcriteria shown in FIG. 6 to ultimately make the purchase decision instep 208. The priorities and criteria shown in steps 204 and 206,respectively, are exemplary, and other priorities and criteria can beemployed in the furniture investment optimization process 164.

Once the furniture and other equipment has been selected and purchased,an individual's fit settings for the purchased furniture and currentfurniture are calculated in step 168. During furniture fitting 168, theindividual's responses to survey topics are input into functions tocompute the calculated settings for various aspects of the furniture.Examples of functions and rules for rounding the output of the functionsare presented in box 210 of FIG. 8. The functions are developed fromergonomic engineering research and, as further research is conducted,can be altered, deleted, appended, or otherwise improved. In general,the functions are mathematical expressions of the relationship betweenfit settings and data resulting from the survey topics. If a surveytopic is included in a function, then the survey topic is an activevariable. Conversely, an inactive variable is a survey topic that is nota part of the mathematical expression.

The calculated settings are used to determine actual fit settings, asshown in boxes 212 and 214. The functions in box 212 are utilized if thework surface height is adjustable; however, if the work surface heightcannot be raised or lowered, then the settings must account for thefixed height by using the functions in box 214. Again, the functions inboxes 212 and 214 are exemplary; they can be edited or otherwiseimproved, and it is within the scope of this invention to usefurniture-fitting functions other than those in shown in boxes 212 and214. Other considerations, such as overhead lighting distance, areaddressed in box 216.

It has been determined that some fit settings can be calculated usingresponses from only a few survey topics, such as gender, race, height,weight, hand dominance, and eye dominance, which are highlighted in box218 of FIG. 8. According to the functions in box 210, a chair's seatheight (distance from the floor to the seat), arm height (distance fromthe seat to the arm), and seat depth can be determined from gender,race, height, and weight data. For example, a 25-year-old Asian male whoweighs 165 pounds and is 70 inches tall has a calculated seat height,arm height, and seat depth of 19.1216, 7.3154, and 19.4648 inches,respectively, or 19, 7, and 19.25 inches after rounding, respectively.If the Asian male has an adjustable height work surface, then the actualfittings for the seat height, arm height, and seat depth are ascalculated. The seated work surface height is 28 inches, and thekeyboard mechanism is located 3 inches therebelow. Additionally, if theAsian male is right-handed and right eye dominant, then the documentholder and task light should be mid-line or to the right and thetelephone should be on the left.

After the fit settings are determined in step 168, they are correlatedin step 170 to a marking system. One example of the marking system isshown in FIG. 9, wherein fit settings for various aspects of theworkspace are assigned to a color. A label 58, such as an example colorbar label 58 in FIG. 10, wherein a single color corresponds to a rangeof settings and each color is sub-graduated to differentiate betweenindividual settings, can be applied to the appropriate area or areas ofthe workspace to provide a visual guide for the individual for adjustingfurniture and other items in the workspace. The marking system in FIGS.9 and 10 is exemplary, and the marking system utilized in the system andmethod 10 can vary significantly therefrom. It is within the scope ofthe invention to use other suitable marking systems that provide avisual indication of an individual's fit settings for various componentsof furniture or other items in the workspace. The marking system ispreferably visually perceptible from a distance to allow for facilevisual monitoring or auditing of the fit settings. For example, the seatheight fitting for the above Asian male corresponds to blue; therefore,he can move the seat up or down accordingly so that the seat height ispositioned in a blue range 59 of the label 58. An auditor shouldpreferably be able to quickly, effortlessly, and visually confirm ordisprove that the Asian male has aligned his seat height in the bluerange 59 of the label 58.

The next step in the system and method 10 is to train 172 theorganization or individual to ensure that the organization or individualis aware of how to utilize the furniture or accessories in the correctergonomic manner as determined in the furniture fitting 168. After thepurchasing decisions 208 are completed, the buyer determines 221 theproduct part number or numbers that correspond to an individual'sproduct requirements. The part numbers identify 223 productcharacteristics, such as adjustable arm height, and help define 225training modules that correspond to the characteristics. As a result,the training modules for an individual are efficiently customized tothat individual's needs. Simultaneously, the buyer determines 227 if theproduct has a marking system or if a marking system will be appliedafter manufacture. Once the marking system is in place, the fit settingsare compared 229 to the training references and are calibrated, ifnecessary. Next, the training modules are provided 222 to the individualbased on the type of product or product part number. The modules containstep-by-step instructions that describe how to adjust the portions ofthe product that correspond to the identified part numbers. For example,a seat height adjustment instruction might direct the individual torotate a knob located on the rear of the seatback counterclockwise untilthe seatback is positioned at the appropriate marker. The individualconfirms 224 whether or not they understand each module, identifies 226any concerns, and/or recalibrates 176 the fit if necessary. Afterindividual issues are addressed 230, 232 and a record of the individualfit is changed 234, the organization is provided 236 a history of anindividual's training.

Once the fitted furniture and other items in the workplace are in use,the system and method 10 can be utilized to monitor 178 the health andergonomic risk of the organization or individual. Changes observed inthe heath index or ergonomic risk can provide an early (i.e. prior to aninjury) notification signal 180 that the risk level of the organizationor individual needs to be reassessed. As discussed hereinafter, themonitoring aspect of the system and method 10 is a very useful tool forinternal and external safety audits and for groups that protect workers'rights, such as labor unions.

As part of the monitoring aspect of the system and method 10, theorganization can quantify the effects of implemented solutions for atask or workspace environment by determining changes in frequency ofinjury or changes in productivity. Obviously, changes in frequency ofinjury can be evaluated by comparing the number and frequency ofinjuries that occurred before and after the solutions were implemented.To evaluate changes in productivity, metrics, which can be determinedeither by survey or by physical performance testing, that assessproductivity based on specific criteria can be imbedded into the systemand method 10. For example, typing efficiency can be measured by thenumber of keystrokes an individual can correctly execute in a givenperiod of time. This test can be performed prior to and followingimplemented solutions, and differences in the results can be used toquantify changes in productivity.

The system and method 10 can be continually improved 228 with respect torisk assessment, solutions for high-risk individuals, furniturerecommendations, and furniture fittings. Steps in the system and method10 corresponding to continual improvement are shown with dashed bordersin FIG. 12. As solutions are implemented in the workspace, historicaldata sets are established, and the equations and processes foridentifying high-risk individuals, defining ergonomic risk, and fittingfurniture can be modified and fine-tuned for greater predictionaccuracy.

In the case of risk assessment, changes in the heath index of anindividual can be correlated 238 to the implemented solutions. Based onthe correlation results, the weight of active variables can be adjusted240 and/or inactive variables can be weighted and added 240 to create242 new risk equations for determining an organization or individual'sergonomic risk in steps 158 and 162. Additionally, active variables canbe adjusted 240 or inactive variables can be added 240 as a result ofcorrelating 241 initial individual health index survey results from step152 with initial ergonomic risk survey results from step 150. Thedynamic inclusion of inactive variables and the statistical weightingthereof ensures that the equations are continuously updated andaccurate.

As part of continual improvement in solutions for high-risk individuals,changes in the heath index of a high-risk individual can be correlated254 to the implemented solutions, and the correlation can be used toprioritize 256 potential non-furniture solutions for the high-riskindividual. The prioritized non-furniture solutions can then assist inidentifying potential non-furniture solutions for the high-riskindividual in step 174.

In addition to non-furniture solutions, furniture recommendations forhigh-risk individuals can be continually improved. Correlation 254 ofchanges in the heath index of a high-risk individual to the implementedsolutions can be used to identify 258 the most effective types andcharacteristics of furniture and specific products. This information canassist in prioritizing 260 potential furniture solutions for high-riskindividuals, which can, in turn, help identify the most effectivefurniture for high-risk individuals in step 166.

Improvements in non-high-risk furniture recommendations are accomplishedby combining correlations 238 between an individual's health indexchange and implemented solutions with correlations made in step 244between the individual's initial heath index determined in step 152 andthe inventory of current furniture from step 156 to prioritize 246potential furniture solutions for individuals. The prioritized furnituresolutions can be employed to optimize the furniture investment in step164.

If the fit of the furniture for an individual is recalibrated in step176, the adjustment amount can be correlated 252 to active and inactivevariables as part of continual improvement for the furniture fittingprocess. Following correlation 252, the weight of active variables canbe adjusted 250 and/or inactive variables can be weighted and added 250,similar to the dynamic inclusion of inactive variables and thestatistical weighting thereof discussed above for the risk equations, tocreate new fitting equations in step 248. The new, improved fittingequations are then employed in step 168 to calculate an individual's fitsettings.

An important outcome of the above described improvement processes isthat equations, such as those that determine high risk individuals andfurniture settings, used in the system and method 10 are continuouslyaltered, added, deleted, or otherwise edited. The equations, which aredetermined from past experience and research, are inherently improved asthe system and method 10 is implemented. As sample size increases,larger quantities of data are available for equation refinement.

A critical feature of the system and method 10 is the ability tocalculate a Return on Investment metric 100. The ROI provides the buyera basis for determining whether or not a purchase decision iscost-effective. The process for calculating the ROI is depictedschematically in FIG. 13. In general, product (furniture and otherworkspace items) options and cost 266, probability 268 of injuryassociated with each product option, average direct and indirect cost270 of each injury incident, and total cost increase or savings 272predicted for each product choice are simultaneously evaluated tocompute 274 the ROI for each product choice.

The probability 268 of injury for a product option depends on severalfactors relating to the risk of injury and to specific products. Asshown in the upper portion of FIG. 13, current Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) recordable history 276, current worker'scompensation history 278, and current individual health index surveyresults 242 can be separately correlated to ergonomic risk surveyresponses from step 150, and future OSHA recordable incidents 282,future worker's compensation incidents 284, and future changes in anindividual's health index 238 can be correlated with implementedsolutions to define the probability 262 of injury for certain riskcriteria. Referring now to the lower portion of FIG. 13, current OSHArecordable history 288, current worker's compensation history 290, andcurrent individual health index survey results 244 can be separatelycorrelated to furniture inventoried in step 156, and future OSHArecordable incidents 302, future worker's compensation incidents 304,and future changes in an individual's health index 306 can be correlatedwith implemented furniture to define any difference 264 in theprobability of injury for specific products. Together, the probability262 of injury for certain risk criteria and the difference 264 in theprobability of injury for specific products determine the probability268 of injury associated with each product option.

EXAMPLE A Workplace Office Application

One application of the system and method 10 according to the inventionwill now be described with respect to a general office workplace and theergonomic scenarios typically encountered by workers therein.

A first step of this example relates to the collection, compilation andinput of the personal attributes 14 of the workers in the officeworkplace. FIGS. 14-15 show a general human form with dimensions whichcan be helpful in determining the personal attributes 14 of each worker.Reference letters I-P can be found in FIG. 14 while reference lettersG-H can be found in FIG. 15. These human form dimensions are summarizedin the following table.

Ref Dimension Definition G Shoulder Horizontal distance between thelateral most Breadth aspects of the shoulder, measured with the subjectsitting erect. H Hip Breadth Horizontal distance between the lateralmost aspects of the hip, measured with the subject sitting erect. IElbow Vertical distance from the sitting surface to the Resting bottomof the elbow measured with the subject Height sitting erect with theupper arm vertical at the side and the forearm at a right angle to theupper arm. J Shoulder Vertical distance from the sitting surface to theHeight lateral acromial process of the shoulder, measured with thesubject in an erect sitting posture. K Eye Height Vertical distance fromthe sitting surface to inner corner of the eye, measured with thesubject sitting erect. L Sitting Vertical distance from the sittingsurface to the top Height of the head with the subject sitting erect. MThigh Vertical distance from the sitting surface to the top Clearance ofthe thigh at its maximum vertical height. Measurement is taken with thesubject sitting erect. N Buttocks- Horizontal distance from the planecreated at the Knee posterior most aspect of the buttocks to the back ofLength the knee, measured with the subject sitting erect. O KneeVertical distance from the floor to the upper aspect Height of the knee,measured with the subject sitting erect. P Stool Height Vertical heightfrom the floor to the sitting surface (Popliteal measured with thesubject sitting erect, with his/her Height) knees and ankle positionedat 90 Â°.

It will also be understood that the above human form dimensions are byexample only, and any other information about the human form can make upthe input data for the personal attributes without departing from thescope of this invention.

Other inputs/information which can be used for the personal attributes14 can include, but are not limited to: standing height, weight, gender(male/female), age (e.g., generally noted by decade of life), ADA issue(yes/no), recent injury, shoulder (pain, numbness, weakness, loss ofrange of motion), elbow (pain, numbness, weakness, loss of range ofmotion), wrist/hand (pain, numbness, weakness, loss of range of motion),neck (pain, numbness, weakness, loss of range of motion), back (pain,numbness, weakness, loss of range of motion), lower extremity (hip,knee, ankle) (pain, numbness, weakness, loss of range of motion), etc.

It is also a feature of this invention that the compilation andcollection of the personal attributes 14 of the workers can be done in astreamlined fashion by a unique method as described herein. Instead ofperforming physical measurements of the workers as contemplated by thedescription of FIGS. 14-15, sizes of clothing worn by the workers can becollected by a simple survey of the workers and the dimensions G-P shownin FIGS. 14-15 can be calculated by known methods. Examples ofdimensions available from clothing sizes are shown in FIGS. 16-17,although other clothing sizes are available and can provide additionaldimensional information for compiling the personal attributes 14 of theworkers. Correlation of the dimensions of FIGS. 14-15 to the clothingsizes shown in FIGS. 16-17 is illustrated in the following table.

Ref Dimension Correlation to Clothing Size I Elbow Resting Height fn(P) + fn (standing height) J Shoulder Height fn (P) + fn (standingheight) K Eye Height fn (P) + fn (standing height) L Sitting Height fn(P) + fn (standing height) M Thigh Clearance fn (P) + fn (body weight) NButtocks-Knee fn (inseam length) Length O Knee Height fn (inseam length)P Stool Height fn (inseam length) (Popliteal Height) G Shoulder Breadthfn (coat size) H Hip Breadth fn (waist measurement of slacks for malesor dress size for women)

It will be understood that the convention “fn (P)” is used to describethat an input is a “function” of dimension “P”.

Using the clothing sizes and other key data supplied by the workers canbe used to relate them to historical anthropometric information todetermine a correlation rate. This solution can often be morepredictive, simpler, and cheaper to implement. It is also contemplatedthat the personal attributes 14 can be made up of a combination of rotephysical measurements and clothing sizes, i.e., the two methods ofcollection of the personal attributes 14 are not mutually exclusive.

Examples of environmental attributes 18 will now be described withrespect to FIGS. 18-47. The following describes an input stage of thesystem/method 10 according to the invention in which a worker'senvironment can be described. The environmental attributes 18 can beprovided via a survey, a touch screen kiosk, a web-based form, and thelike. The environmental attributes 18 are divided for purposes ofconvenience and understanding into six sections: (1) worker positioning;(2) chair configuration; (3) keyboard and input device positioning, (4)monitor positioning; (5) leg positioning; and (6) accessory positioning.

First, the work environment is preferably designed or arranged toprovide optimal positioning while performing computer-related tasks.

A worker's head and neck are preferably upright (not bent down orrearwardly). A worker can select whether the workplace environmentpositions the worker's head: (1) in a proper ergonomic position in whichthe worker's head and neck are upright (see FIG. 18); (2) in an improperergonomic position in which the worker's head and neck are bentdownwardly (i.e., flexed as in FIG. 19) or upwardly (i.e., extended).

A worker's head, neck and trunk are preferably faced forward (notrotated): A worker can select whether the workplace environmentpositions the worker's head, neck and/or trunk: (1) in a face forwardproper ergonomic position (see FIG. 20); or (2) in a rotated improperergonomic position (see FIG. 21).

A worker's shoulders and upper arms are preferably generallyperpendicular to a floor (not stretched forward) and relaxed (notelevated or hunched). A worker can select whether the workplaceenvironment positions the worker's shoulder and arms: (1) generallyperpendicular to the floor in a proper ergonomic position (see, e.g.,FIG. 22); or (2) in an improper ergonomic position where the worker'sshoulder and arms are stretched forward and/or elevated.

A worker's upper arms and elbows are preferably close to the body (notextended outward). A worker can select whether the workplace environmentpositions the worker's upper arms and elbows: (1) close to the body in aproper ergonomic position (see FIG. 23); or (2) extended outwardly intension in an improper ergonomic position.

A worker's wrist and hands are preferably straight (not bent up or downand/or sideways toward the worker's little finger). A worker can selectwhether the workplace environment positions the worker's wrists andhands: (1) in a straight proper ergonomic position (see FIGS. 24 and25); or (2) in an improper ergonomic position where the worker's wristsand hands are bent up or down (extended or flexed) and/or deviatedtoward the little-finger side (ulnar deviation).

A worker's thighs are preferably positioned about parallel to the floorand the worker's lower legs are preferably positioned generallyperpendicular to the floor. A worker can select whether the workplaceenvironment positions the worker's: (1) thighs parallel to the floor andlower legs perpendicular to the floor in a proper ergonomic position(see, e.g., FIG. 26); or (2) thighs not parallel and/or the lower legsnot perpendicular to the floor in an improper ergonomic position.

A worker's feet preferably rest flat on the floor or are supported by astable footrest. A worker can select whether the workplace environmentpositions the worker's feet: (1) flat on the floor or on a stablefootrest in a proper ergonomic position (see FIG. 27); or (2) askance onthe floor or are on an unsupported or a poorly-supported footrest in animproper ergonomic position.

Second, an office furniture chair should be designed to provide optimalpositioning while performing computer related tasks. The worker can alsoselect environmental attributes 18 relating to the positioning of aseating member.

A chair backrest preferably provides support for the worker's lowerback. A worker can select whether the workplace environment positionsthe worker's chair: (1) in a proper position of the chair backrestlocating the backrest in a proper ergonomic position (see FIG. 28); or(2) the chair backrest is too high or too low, positioning the worker inan improper ergonomic position.

A chair should have a sufficient width and depth to accommodate theworker (i.e., the seat pan is not too big or too small). A worker canselect whether the worker's chair: (1) has proper parameters of theseatpan seating the worker in a proper ergonomic position; or (2) theseatpan width is too wide or narrow or the seatpan depth is too long ortoo short.

Preferably, a front edge of the seat does not press against the back ofthe knee or lower leg of the worker. A worker can select whether theworker's chair: (1) has proper positioning of front edge of the seat sothat the front edge does not touch the worker's leg (see FIG. 29); or(2) the front edge of seat presses on the rear side of the knee/lowerleg of the worker, creating an undesirable ergonomic condition.

The chair also preferably has cushioning and is rounded (i.e., has awaterfall-type or cascading front edge to the seat). A worker can selectwhether the worker's chair: (1) is a cushioned seat with a waterfalledge providing a proper ergonomic seating surface; or (2) has a seatwithout cushioning and/or a seat without a waterfall edge providing animproper ergonomic seating surface.

A chair should also have armrests that support both forearms while theworker is seated therein. The armrests should not interfere with theworker's body movement. A worker can select whether the worker's chair:(1) has proper forearm support while performing computing tasks thusproviding a proper ergonomic position (FIG. 30); or (2) has improperlysupported forearms and/or a seat configuration wherein the worker'slower legs are not supported in a perpendicular fashion.

Third, any keyboard and/or input device (such as a pointing device likea mouse or trackball) should be arranged to provide optimal positioningwhile performing computer-related tasks.

A support tray for the keyboard/input device should preferably be stableand sufficiently large to hold both the keyboard and the input device onthe same planar surface. A worker can select whether the workplaceenvironment has a keyboard tray in which: (1) the keyboard platform/trayallows placement of both the keyboard tray and input device thereon in acommon planar arrangement, thus delivering a proper ergonomic position(see FIG. 31); or (2) the keyboard platform/tray does not allowplacement of both items thereon leaving the keyboard and pointing devicein an improper ergonomic position.

The input device (e.g., a mouse or a trackball) is preferably locateddirectly adjacent to the keyboard so it can be operated withoutrequiring the worker to reach for it. A worker can select whether theworkplace environment positions the input device: (1) directly adjacentto the keyboard, thus providing a desirable ergonomic position (see FIG.32); or (2) the position of the input device requires the worker toreach for it during operation (see FIG. 33).

The shape and/or size of the input device preferably fits the hand ofthe worker (i.e., not too big or small). A worker can select whether theinput device: (1) is properly sized for the worker's hand and fingermovement (see FIG. 34); or (2) the input device is either too small ortoo large for the user.

Preferably, the worker's wrist and hands do not rest on sharp or hardedges. A worker can select whether the workplace environment: (1)properly positions the worker's wrist and hand providing a desirableergonomic environment (see FIG. 35); or (2) the worker's wrist and/orhand are positioned over a sharp, hard or otherwise uncomfortable edgecreating an improper ergonomic condition.

Fourth, the computer monitor is preferably arranged to provide optimalpositioning while performing computer related tasks. For example, a topedge of the monitor screen is preferably at or below eye level so theworker does not have to bend his or her head and/or neck up or down(i.e., cervical flexion or extension). A worker can select whether theworkplace environment has a monitor which: (1) is properly positioned ina desirable ergonomic position (see FIG. 36 for non-bifocal/trifocalwearers and FIG. 37 for bifocal/trifocal wearers); or (2) has the topedge of the monitor positioned too high or too low. Bifocal and/ortrifocal wearers are preferably able to read the screen without bendingthe worker's head/neck up or down this situation is illustrated in FIG.37 where the glasses-wearer positions the monitor at a downwardly-angledposition to accommodate the line of sight required by thebifocals/trifocals. A worker can select whether the workplaceenvironment has: (1) a properly positioned monitor for desirableergonomic line of sight purposes (as in FIGS. 36-37); or (2) the monitoris positioned too high or too low.

The distance from the worker to the monitor is preferably arranged sothat the worker can read the monitor screen without leaning the worker'shead, neck or trunk forwardly or rearwardly. A worker can select whetherthe workplace environment has: (1) an ergonomically-positioned monitordistance (see the arm's-length example in FIG. 38); or (2) a monitorreading distance that is too far or too near.

The monitor is also preferably positioned directly in front of theworker (with no twisting or rotation of the worker's head or trunk). Aworker can select whether the workplace environment has: (1) a properlyergonomically-positioned monitor angular position with respect to theworker's head/trunk (see FIG. 39); or (2) the monitor position is off tothe side requiring the worker to rotate the worker's head/trunk to viewthe monitor (see FIG. 40).

Preferably, no glare is imparted to the monitor screen by ambientlighting in the workplace environment that would require a worker toassume an awkward posture or position to read the screen. A worker canselect whether the workplace environment has: (1) a monitor with noglare; or (2) monitor with glare (see the glare-filled monitor screen inFIG. 41).

Fifth, the work area is preferably designed to provide optimalpositioning while performing computer related tasks. For example, aworker's thighs preferably have appropriate clearance between the chairand a computer work-surface/keyboard tray so that the user's thighs arenot trapped between the chair and the work-surface/keyboard tray. Aworker can select whether the workplace environment has: (1) appropriatethigh clearance between the chair and the computer work-surface/keyboardtray providing a desirable ergonomic condition; or (2) the worker'sthighs are trapped between the chair and the computerwork-surface/keyboard tray creating an improper ergonomic position.

In addition, the worker's legs and feet preferably have appropriateclearance under the computer table so that the worker can get closeenough to the keyboard/input device for comfortable operation thereof. Aworker can select whether the workplace environment has: (1) appropriateleg and foot clearance under the work-surface, creating a properergonomic condition; or (2) the worker encounters some sort of barrierunder the computer table which does not allow the worker to getsufficiently close to the keyboard or input device for comfortableoperation and, thus, an improper ergonomic condition.

Sixth, the work area is preferably designed to provide optimalpositioning of computer-related accessories when they are deemedappropriate for use. For example, a document holder (if provided) isstable and large enough to hold documents that are used (perhaps fortranscription or editing). A worker can select whether the workplaceenvironment has: (1) an appropriately-sized document holder for mediumto large documents (see FIG. 42); or (2) a poorly-sized document holderfor a given set of task requirements.

In addition, the document holder (if provided) is preferably placed atabout the same height and distance as the monitor screen. This willminimize the worker's head movement when the worker looks between thedocument on the document holder and the monitor screen. A worker canselect whether the workplace environment has: (1) a properly-positioneddocument holder creating a desirable ergonomic position (see FIG. 42);or (2) a document holder positioned off to the side requiring a turn ofthe head to view in an improper ergonomic position (see FIG. 43 for anexample).

If provided, a worker's wrist rest is preferably padded and free ofsharp edges. A worker can select whether the workplace environment has:(1) a padded wrist rest that is free from sharp edges creating adesirable ergonomic condition (see FIGS. 44-45); or (2) has a wrist restthat demonstrates a sharp edge and/or lacks padding, creating animproper ergonomic condition.

In addition, the wrist rest (if provided) allows the worker to keep itsforearms, wrist and hands in a straight/neutral posture while utilizingthe keyboard/input device. A worker can select whether the workplaceenvironment has: (1) a properly-positioned wrist rest creating a properergonomic situation (see FIGS. 44-45); or (2) has a wrist rest positionwhich requires excessive wrist flexion and/or extension.

Telephones are often used in the work environment. Preferably, thetelephone can be used with the worker's head in an upright/neutralposture. In addition, the worker's shoulders are relaxed if the userchooses to perform computer tasks and phone tasks at the same time. Aworker can select whether the workplace environment has: (1) properphone postures during telephonic use (see FIG. 46 with a telephoneheadset shown as an example of proper ergonomic positioning); or (2) adeviated neck and/or shoulder posture while utilizing the telephoneand/or the computer creating an undesirable ergonomic condition (seeFIG. 47).

An example survey used to collect task-related attributes 16 is shown inFIG. 48. The questions shown in the example survey gather data regardingthe duration and types of tasks performed in the work environment.

Once the personal, task and environmental attributes 14, 16 and 18,respectively, have been collected, they are supplied as inputs to thecoding equation 12 to produce the output 20 as shown in FIG. 1.

The coding equation 12 is further described in the following paragraphs.

A function of the personal attributes 14 is described as:P=fn(anthropometric data)(height)(weight)(gender)(age)(injuryhistory)(etc.)

A function of the task attributes 16 is described as:T=fn(length of workday)(% of workday spent computing)(hours of homecomputing)(type of software application)(type of computer, i.e.,desktop, laptop, hand-held)

A function of the environmental attributes 18 is described as:E=fn(working conditions)(seating interface)(keyboard/mouseinterface)(monitor interface)(work area interface)(interface withcomputer accessories)(etc.)

The above functions are shown as examples as the inventors realize thatmany other mathematical calculations could be employed without departingfrom the scope of this invention.

Then, the risk of injury can be determined by:Risk of injury=fn(PÂ·EÂ·T)and the effect on office productivity can also be determined byProductivity Metric=fn(PÂ·EÂ·T).

The following paragraphs outline some sample calculations and describeone example of the coding equation 12 in greater detail. A scoringprocedure is introduced which places point values on each of thepersonal, task and environmental attributes 14-18 described by exampleabove.

For example, with respect to the environmental attributes 18 describedabove, each negative answer to the ergonomic environmentalcharacteristics described with respect to FIGS. 18-47 can be scored witha predetermined number of points (i.e., the more negative the ratings,the higher the effect on the risk of injury calculation). For example,the user positioning negative answers (section 1 above) could be scoredas two points and the remaining sections 2-6 could be scored as onepoint. The total environmental attribute score can be determined by thesum of the negative answers, weighted according to that set forth above.Office Environment Score(A)=A pts.

One simple example scoring of the personal attributes 14 can be done byscoring each of the measured criteria. The following table shows asample table for the age personal attribute.

Age Female Male 20-35 3 1 35-50 4 3 50-65 2 2

Another sample criteria would be to add one point to the age tablesabove if the worker had a history of recent injury within a previouspredetermined number of months, such as in the last quarter or last sixmonths.

These same scoring techniques can be repeated for each of the personalattributes 14 collected.Personal Demographics Score(B)=B pts.

In the event the sample survey (or something similar) shown in FIG. 36is employed, the task attributes can be scored in similar fashion. Thetask attribute inputs are measured as a function of the average totaltime of computing each day (in the office example). The following tableprovides a sample criteria for scoring of one of the task attributes 16shown in the survey of FIG. 36.

Average of Daily Computing Time Score <1 hour computing time 0.5 1-4hours computing time 1.0 4-7 hours of computing time 2.0 >7 hours ofcomputing time 4.0

The task attribute 16 score can then be calculated.Office Related Task Score(C)=C pts.

A risk rating can be calculated within the coding equation 12 by thesample formula below:Relative Risk Rating=(A)Â·(B)Â·(C)

Then, if an ordinal rating of the risk is desired, the numerical outputof the risk rating calculation can be stratified in a categorized ratingsystem. For example, if the risk rating were calculated on an 80-pointscale (i.e., the highest possible score output by the coding equation 12for rating risk is 80), the calculation for each worker could becategorized as follows.

Total Score 0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 Over 60 RelativeRisk Minimal LowModerate High Very HighFictional Case Studies

The following section sets forth two case studies and provides theoutput 20 of the coding equation 12 as set forth above in theimmediately preceding paragraphs. The first case study is a 43-year-oldfemale with no history of injury and the second is a 45-year-old malewith no history of injury. The various negative ergonomic features ofeach of their personal, task and environmental attributes 14-18 areprovided below.

Case Study 1—43-Year-Old Female

The first case study environmental attributes 18 are:

Section Environmental Attribute Score 1 Shoulders and upper arms arestretched forward 2 2 No armrest 1 3 Wrist and hands rest on sharp edge1 4 Monitor is too high 1 Environmental Attribute Score (A) 5 pts

The first case study personal attributes 14 (a simplified list ofattributes is used for purposes of simplicity and illustration) are:

Personal Attribute Score 43-year-old female 4 No recent history ofinjury 0 Personal Attribute Score (B) 4 pts

The first case study task attributes 16 (again, a simplified list ofattributes is used for purposes of simplicity and illustration) are:

Task Attribute Score Average of Daily Computing Time = 1-4 hours 1 TaskAttribute Score (C) 1 pt

Then, the relative risk rating (using the stratified table of ratingcategories listed above in the sample 80-point sacle) can be calculatedas:Relative Risk Rating=(A)Â·(B)Â·(C)=(5)Â·(4)Â·(1)=20=“Low Risk”Case Study 2—45-Year-Old Male

The second case study environmental attributes 18 are:

Section Environmental Attribute Score 1 Head is not upright 2 1 Ulnardeviation 2 2 No armrest 1 3 Wrist and hands rest on sharp edge 1 4Monitor is too low 1 Environmental Attnbute Score (A) 7 pts

The second case study personal attributes 14 (a simplified list ofattributes is used for purposes of simplicity and illustration) are:

Personal Attribute Score 45-year-old male 3 No recent history of injury0 Personal Attribute Score (B) 3 pts

The second case study attributes 16 (again, a simplified list ofattributes is used for purposes of simplicity and illustration) are:

Task Attribute Score Average of Daily Computing Time = 4-7 hours 2 TaskAttribute Score (C) 2 pts

Then, the relative risk rating (using the stratified table of ratingcategories listed above in the sample 80-point scale) can be calculatedas:Relative Risk Rating=(Â)Â·(B)Â·(C)=(7)Â·(3)Â·(2)=42=“Moderate Risk”

As can be seen, each individual in a workplace can have thesecalculations performed, and a company can determine which individualshave more potential for injury than others. The system and method 10described herein provides an integrated sales and product promotionprocess, which requires the involvement of the entire distributionchain, from product development through training and audit process ofthe end user. A common language is utilized (i.e., measurementtechniques) and processes for each person involved. For sellers ofoffice products, their knowledge base is improved and the dealers haveoptions of a more sophisticated selling process, which capitalizes thebenefit of reducing workplace risk and injury. The sellers can also havethe opportunity to sell new discrete products to an installed customerbase, based on reduced risk (i.e., the output 20 of the coding equation12 shown by example herein).

The system and method 10 set forth herein provides a user-friendly,fully integrated and systematic approach to measure the attributes ofthe person, the task, and the environment, and identifies optimaloutcomes and related risk of injury and productivity improvement. Theentire distribution chain can be involved in this process. Theproductivity of organizations can be improved by reducing lost workdaysand worker injury. As will be described, a user of the system and method10 is provided with the ability to assure appropriate installation andfuture compliance to safe work methods.

The system and method 10 can be used by sellers of products and managersof facilities to assess and manage workplace ergonomics. The user inputsinformation about a company's individual users, or groups of users(those who share a workstation), and tasks to be completed. Use of thesystem and method 10 can provide the user with a list of productoptions, risk rating, cost, calculated risk of injury, and productivityimprovement estimates. The user can make buying decisions for furnitureand equipment based on that information.

Furniture can be coded with a user-friendly and easily identifiablesystem (e.g., color-coded) to define different settings available forthe product. The system and method 10 can provide a code by individualor groups of users, defining the settings the individual pieces offurniture must be set to, to support the decision criteria used by thebuyer.

Turning to the example codings shown in FIGS. 49-61, an office chair 40is shown comprising a seat 42 and a base 44 adjustably connected to thebase by a seat height adjuster 46. A seatback 48 is also provided whichis adjustably mounted to the seat 42 by a seatback height adjuster 50.The seat 42 has a pair of armrests 52 mounted thereto which areadjustably mounted in the vertical direction to the seat 42 by anarmrest height adjuster 54 as well as in the lateral direction by anarmrest lateral adjuster 56.

Each of the adjusters 146, 50, 54 and 56 is provided with indicia 58which are representative of the particular adjusted setting of theadjuster 46, 50, 54 and 56. The indicia 58 are preferably a series ofcolor-coded symbols (such as circles as shown in the figures) whichprogressively increase or decrease in intensity and/or color so as to beindicative of the particular setting of the adjuster 46, 50, 54 and 56.For example, the indicia 58 in FIGS. 49-50 are representative of theheight setting of the seat 42 relative to the base 44 as set by the seatheight adjuster 46. The indicia 58 associated with the seatback heightadjuster 50 are representative of the vertical height of the seatback 48relative to the seat 42, and so forth.

The coding indicia 58 can take other forms, such as letters, numbers andthe like without departing from the scope of this invention. Once theindicia 58 have been determined for each worker, a matrix can bedetermined to assist office managers in ensuring workers are using theirequipment in an ergonomically-desirable manner. An example of such asettings matrix is set forth below.

Seat Seatback Armrest Height Height Height Armrest Lateral WorkerSetting Setting Setting Position Setting John S. Blue Blue Green BlueMary T. Red Orange Blue Orange Joseph K. Blue Green Green Red Susan F.Orange Green Green Yellow

Furniture installers can also be provided the coded data by individualworkstation to assure installation meets design criteria. A sales personor support group can provide the coded information to the workers, aswell as training to help assure safe use of the product (e.g., to setchair heights and other adjustments to ergonomically correct settingsfor a particular worker).

The user's risk and/or safety teams can be provided the codedinformation to be used to audit compliance to safe work methods.Salespeople can utilize the system and method 10 provided to assess thepotential risk of an installed customer to sell incremental products.Salespeople can also utilize the system and method 10 to sell furnitureto high-risk individuals with pre-existing injuries or immediatelyfollowing an injury to attempt to reduce the potential for future orexacerbating injuries. Product designers can utilize the system andmethod 10 to identify product niches not currently supported by productofferings and direct design efforts accordingly.

In the retail arena, the system and method 10 can be employed to assistretail purchasers in the selection of home office equipment which wouldtend to result in a selection of ergonomically-appropriate equipment forthe home. A user-friendly interface, such as a touch-screen kiosk, couldbe provided in a retail establishment to allow users or retailsalespeople to input required information (such as the attributes 14-18)of the system and method 10. The salespeople at the retail outlet canuse the output 20 thereof to make sales recommendations or,alternatively, the system and method 10 can be interfaced with adatabase of office furniture products to provide a “shopping list” ofappropriate products. An integrated sales and product promotion processis therefore provided, which can involve the entire distribution chainof the products at issue. A common language is utilized (measurementtechniques) and processes for each person involved. A retailer istherefore provided with the opportunity to sell new discretehigher-priced and valued products to buyers, based on reduced risk andincreased productivity as output by the coding equation 12.

While an office furniture-related example was discussed herein, thesystem and method 10 is equally applicable to any workplace arena,including manufacturing, plants and the like to assess the ergonomics ofusing punch and press equipment, for example, as well as lifting andequipment movement applications.

The system and method 10 can also be employed in safety auditapplications. A user-friendly system and method 10 is provided toevaluate individuals and groups of individuals which considers people,tasks, and the environment in which work is performed. The codingequation 12 can provide quantified risk assessment, risk of injury, andproductivity impact and can be independently validated through thecoding indicia 58.

The inventive system and method 10 described herein measures attributesof the person, the task, and their environment, and to identify optimaloutcomes and related risk-of-injury and productivity measures. Thesystem and method 10 provides a vehicle to assess the ergonomicconditions and risk of injury of every employee in a company, if needed,and it is done in a user-friendly manner. In the safety audit arena,corporate risk and safety management teams or consultants canproactively assess a company's ergonomics situation and define an actionplan to minimize risk.

The corporate risk and safety management teams or consultants canreactively investigate events and define an action plan to minimizerisk. Additionally, teams for corporations that have home-basedemployees can identify when an off-site individual is at risk andrequires an at-home visit or audit. Governmental risk and safetymanagement teams can systematically assess the risk of an organizationor investigate an incident, provide education, or impose fines based onthe situation they find using the system and method 10 described herein.Labor unions can quantifiably assess the safety of the work environmentof their members, and use that information to influence the actions ofthe employer.

While the invention has been specifically described in connection withcertain specific embodiments thereof, it is to be understood that thisis by way of illustration and not of limitation, and the scope of theappended claims should be construed as broadly as the prior art willpermit.

1. An apparatus for improving ergonomics for a user within a workplace,comprising: plurality of work areas, wherein a user can perform multiplephysical tasks within the workplace by interacting with the plurality ofwork areas, each of the plurality of work areas having at least onephysically adjustable parameter adjustable through a range of motion; anindicator associated with each of the plurality of work areas, theindicator comprising a series of visually unique settings, each settingcorresponding to a physical range of motion of the at least onephysically adjustable parameter of the corresponding plurality of workareas; and a stored data set associated with the user of the workplace,wherein the stored data set comprises information representative of adetermined series of ergonomic settings for each of the at least onephysically adjustable parameter of the plurality of work areas in theworkplace as represented by the indicator and correlated with the userof the workplace; wherein retrieval of the stored data set correspondingto the user permits the plurality of work areas to be conformed to thedetermined series of ergonomic settings in the stored data setassociated with the user of the workplace.
 2. The apparatus of claim 1wherein the determined series of ergonomic settings are based on inputdata representative of at least one of: (1) at least one physicalcharacteristic of the user, (2) at least one physical characteristic ofat least one task performed by the user, and (3) at least one physicalcharacteristic of at least one environmental feature of the workplace.3. The apparatus of claim 2 wherein the input data is input into atleast one function and an output of the at least one function is used todetermine a first series of fit settings for each of the plurality ofwork areas in the workplace.
 4. The apparatus of claim 3 wherein thefirst series of fit settings is used to determine the series ofergonomic settings corresponding to the user of the workplace.
 5. Theapparatus of claim 1 wherein the workplace comprises an officeenvironment.
 6. The apparatus of claim 5 wherein at least one of thework areas comprises a keyboard located on an adjustable support trayhaving at least one physically adjustable parameter.
 7. The apparatus ofclaim 5 wherein at least one of the work areas comprises a chair havinga plurality of physically adjustable parameters.
 8. The apparatus ofclaim 5 wherein at least one of the work area comprises a monitormounted on a stand having at least one physically adjustable parameter.9. The apparatus of claim 5 wherein the workplace comprises a homeoffice.
 10. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the workplace comprises amanufacturing facility.
 11. The apparatus of claim 10 wherein the workarea comprises at least one of a work station, an assembly station, acomputer work station and combinations thereof.
 12. The apparatus ofclaim 1 wherein the at least one physically adjustable parametercomprises at least one of a seat height of a chair, an arm height of achair, a monitor position, a leg position, a thigh position, an armwidth adjustment of a chair, a lumbar height adjustment of a chair, atilt lock adjustment of a chair, seat depth adjustment of a chair, awork surface height, a keyboard height, an input device position, adocument holder position, a telephone position, a telephone useposition, a foot rest position, a task position and combinationsthereof.
 13. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least onephysically adjustable parameter is adjustable through a range of motionhaving a first end and a second end and the series of visually uniquesettings comprises a first unique setting generally associated with aportion of the range of motion adjacent the first end, a second uniquesetting generally associated with a portion of the range of motionadjacent the second end, and at least one intervening unique settingbetween the first unique setting and the second unique setting.
 14. Theapparatus of claim 1 wherein each visually unique setting is color-codedto be visually distinct from the other of the visually unique settings.15. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the stored data set includes amatrix of determined ergonomic settings to which each of the at leastone users is coded corresponding to each of the at least one physicallyadjustable parameters.
 16. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the visuallyunique settings of the indicator are visually perceptible from adistance to allow for easy visual auditing of the alignment of the atleast one physically adjustable parameter of the plurality of work areaswith the determined series of ergonomic settings corresponding to theuser in the work area.
 17. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the visuallyunique settings of the indicator include sub-graduated areascorresponding to additional ergonomic settings.